Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs Minor.Kamachi on 5 January, 2021
C.M.A.(MD) No.1084 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
C.M.A.(MD) No.1084 of 2010
and
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2010
The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
Kumbakonam Division
Periyamelaguparai
Trichy-1 ... Appellant
-vs-
Minor.Kamachi ... Respondent
rep.by mother and next friend
Akilambal
[Respondent declared as major vide
Judgment dated 05.01.2021]
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the Decree and Judgment of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (3rd Additional Subordinate Judge), Trichy, made in
M.C.O.P.No.1894 of 2001, dated 27.09.2006.
1/7
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.(MD) No.1084 of 2010
For Appellant : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar
For Respondent : No appearance
JUDGMENT
This civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the Transport
Corporation aggrieved over the Judgment and Award, dated dated 27.09.2006,
passed in M.C.O.P.No.1894 of 2001, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal /
III Additional Subordinate Judge, Trichy, wherein the Tribunal has awarded
Rs.29,250/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum as against the
claim of Rs.2,00,000/-.
2. The facts in brief are that the respondent herein filed a claim
petition seeking compensation on the ground that on 18.12.2000, at about
07.00 p.m., while she was walking on Malattaru Bridge, near Srirangam, a
Bus bearing registration No.TN45 N0883 belonging to the appellant –
Transport Corporation, hit against her. It is alleged by the claimant that the
driver drove the Bus in a rash and negligent manner and in the accident, she
sustained injuries and fractures and she was immediately taken to Srirangam
Government Hospital, where she took treatment from 18.12.2000 to
21.12.2000 as inpatient. It is further stated by the claimant that she was
working as a Representative and thereby, earning Rs.1,500/- per month.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.(MD) No.1084 of 2010
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the appellant – Transport
Corporation, the age, income and manner of the accident were denied. It is
further stated that though the occurrence is said to have been taken place on
18.12.2000, a complaint was lodged only on 31.01.2001 and hence, the entire
claim is false.
4. To prove the case of the claimant, three witnesses were examined
and five documents were marked and on the side of the Transport
Corporation, one witness was examined and one document was marked. On
appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal found that
both the claimant and the driver of the Bus were equally responsible for the
accident and awarded a compensation accordingly. Aggrieved over the same,
the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed.
5. Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant –
Transport Corporation, would urge that the award of the Tribunal is arbitrary,
excessive and against the weight of evidence. It is further stated that no such
occurrence had taken place as projected by the claimant and the the delay in
lodging the complaint was not explained by her and hence, the claim petition
ought to have been dismissed.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.(MD) No.1084 of 2010
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant – Transport
Corporation and carefully perused the materials available on record.
7. A perusal of the records would reveal that P.W.2, who was a
passenger in the Bus at the time of the accident, lodged a complaint belatedly.
He further deposed that after the accident, when he insisted the driver to stop
the Bus, the driver scolded him and therefore, he could not lodge the
complaint immediately. On the side of the Transport Corporation, either the
log-book or the trip-sheet was produced to show that the vehicle did not ply on
the road at the time of the accident. Hence, after analyzing the evidence of
R.W.1 and P.W.2, the Tribunal found that both the driver and the claimant are
equally responsible for the accident.
8. The claimant (P.W.1) has stated that she sustained fracture in the
right leg and three fingers were also crushed. Ex.P2 – Wound Certificate
shows that the claimant sustained fracture in the right leg. P.W.3 –
Dr.V.R.Ravi, after verifying Ex.P5 – X-Ray and examining the claimant, issued
Ex.P4 – Disability Certificate certifying that the claimant sustained 36%
permanent disability. However, the Tribunal has taken the disability as 31%
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.(MD) No.1084 of 2010
and awarded Rs.46,500/- for permanent disability; Rs.10,000/- towards pain
and suffering and mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards extra nourishment
and in total, the Tribunal awarded Rs.58,500/-, however, taking 50% towards
liability for the accident, awarded Rs.29,250/- along with interest at the rate
of 7.5% per annum. In my considered view, the appellant – Transport
Corporation has not made out any case to interfere with the Award passed by
the Tribunal.
9. The claim petition is of the year 2001 and at that relevant point of
time, the respondent was a minor and by now, she should have become major.
So, the respondent is declared as major and the Tribunal is hereby directed to
disburse her award amount.
10. In fine, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. In view of
the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant – Transport Corporation is directed
to deposit their proportionate share (i.e.50%) of the award amount with
accrued interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On
such deposit, the respondent / claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount
(i.e.50% of the award amount), less the amount already withdrawn, if any,
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.(MD) No.1084 of 2010
together with interest and costs. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
05.01.2021
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Note :
In view of the present lock down
owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the Judgment may be
utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the
Judgment that is presented is the
correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate /
litigant concerned.
krk
To:
1.The III Additional Subordinate Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Trichy.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.(MD) No.1084 of 2010
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
krk
C.M.A.(MD) No.1084 of 2010
and
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2010
05.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
